|
|
Why are Companies Let to
Take Citizens Exercising
Their Fundamental
Democratic Rights to
Court So That Their
Rights Could Be
Curtailed by
Injunctions: This Can
Not Be Let to Continue
and The Humanion Invites
the Parliament’s
Relevant Committee to
Urgently Investigate
This Alarming and
Unacceptable Practice
Being Abused: UKOG Back
Off |
 |
|
|| June
26: 2018 || ά. No wonder
Mr Keith Taylor, the
Green MEP for the South
East is supporting six
'brave and courageous'
women from Sussex and
Surrey due at the High
Court on either July 02
or 03 to 'defend their
right to peaceful
protest' against UK Oil
and Gas:UKOG. The entire
Houses of Parliament
should support these
citizens, in this case,
all women, for as
citizens they have the
fundamental democratic,
civic and lawful rights
to peaceful and
legitimate protest
against activities by
any one or any agency,
that is detrimental to
public health and safety
and that endangers and
curtails human, civic
and fundamental rights.
For exercising these
very rights neither any
person nor any agency or
body can take people to
court to get injunctions
sanctioned against them
so to curtail and
infringe on their
rights.
In a democratic society
this can not be let to
continue to happen. The
Humanion invites the
Parliament’s, both
Houses, relevant
committees to launch
joint urgent inquiry to
investigate as to how
these practices are
increasingly being used
by desperate companies
against citizens so that
they can move forward
with changing this abuse
of ‘protocol’. As for Mr
Keith Taylor MEP, he is
vocally and actively
supporting the
campaigners from across
the South East and
London, who are joining
forces in support of
these defendants and
they will be outside the
High Court to support
them in their fight
against UKOG's bid for a
‘chilling and
anti-democratic’
injunction.
This manner by which
UKOG has gone to court
and applied for
injunctions against a
‘class of people’,
termed as ‘persons
unknown’, is at best,
downright ridiculous
and, at worst,
absolutely dangerous
since this could,
hypothetically, apply to
all citizens of the
locality concerned as
soon as they join any
protest against UKOG.
The Parliament must
‘rise' from its seats in
horror of this
‘Machiavellian’ but
corporate ‘abuse’ of the
Judiciary. The
Parliament must rise to
the challenge of
challenging this abuse
of the Judiciary in this
manner by companies
seeking to curtail and
infringe citizens’
democratic and
fundamental rights.
Mr Taylor, has supported
the defendants
throughout the process.
Ahead of the hearing, he
said, "UKOG is so
desperate and their
business model so
unsustainable that
instead of securing a
social licence for their
destructive operations,
they'd rather drag local
residents to the High
Court, in the hopes of
securing an
anti-democratic
injunction against their
fundamental rights.
I continue to,
wholeheartedly, support
the six courageous
residents taking up the
fight in the High Court
and wish them the best
of luck in the fight for
our rights, our
environment and the
future for our children
and our children's
children.
On the details of the
injunction itself, one
of the defendants, Ms
Natasha Doane, who lives
in Surrey, said, "I am
concerned that the
injunction, if, granted,
would be likely to have
a serious deterrent
effect on local people
being able to continue
campaigning in
opposition to UKOG’s
activities.
From reading the
injunction, it is very
difficult to understand
what is covered by the
description of ‘persons
unknown’ and how
previously legal acts
could in the future be
considered ‘illegal’ and
in what conditions this
would come into effect
and what the
consequences would be."
Ms Lorraine Inglis, of
the Weald Action Group,
said, “This is a blatant
effort to silence
peaceful protest. The
defendants decided to
come forward on behalf
of all of us, who object
to this industry’s
greedy attack on our
environment including a
healthy climate.
These oil companies are
trying to change
Government policy to
fast-track their plans
through the planning
system, at the same
time, as shutting down
the opportunity for
opponents to have their
voices heard.”
UKOG has drilling sites
across the South East,
including, Broadford
Bridge in West Sussex
and Horse Hill in
Surrey, both mentioned
in the injunction. It,
also, has a significant
stake in the proposed
drilling site at Leith
Hill in Surrey and a
planned new site on the
Isle of Wight.
According to Mr Taylor,
the company says that it
is trying to stop
various forms of legal
protests, that affect
its ‘commercial
interests’. It follows
in the wake of other
wide-ranging injunctions
by fracking giants
Cuadrilla and INEOS,
which are still the
subject of legal
challenge.
Although, the South East
sites are not
technically defined as
fracking by the
government, they involve
similar methods like
acidisation to access
the hard to reach ‘tight
oil’ locked into the
shale. Local communities
have voiced concerns
about the potential risk
to groundwater
contamination, impacts
of air pollution with
flaring, problems of
HGVs on narrow country
roads and the loss of
more countryside to
concrete and industrial
development.
Mr Taylor further points
out that the CEO of UKOG
MR Stephen Sanderson has
said that he wants to
see ‘back to back wells’
in an industrial
production, this
includes land in the
Green Belt, Areas of
Outstanding Natural
Beauty and National
Parks.
The Legal Team: The
injunction will be
challenged by Ms
Stephanie Harrison QC,
leading Mr Timothy
Baldwin and Mr Stephen
Simblet, leading Ms Anna
Morris of the Garden
Court Chambers Civil
Liberties Team,
instructed by Mr Michael
Oswald of Bhatt Murphy
Solicitors.
Caption: Defendants Ms
Constance Whiston, Ms
Vicki Elcoate, Ms Ann
Stewart, Ms Sue Jameson,
Ms Jacqui Hamlin and Ms
Natasha Doane: Image:
Keith Taylor MEP’s
office. :::ω.
||
Readmore ||
‽: 270618 ||
Up || |
|
Torture: The Barbarity
Humanity Still
Perpetuates Across the
Globe: This is a
Resource for the World
to Fight Against Torture
|
 |
|
|| June
24: 2018: University of
Exeter News || ά. A new
invaluable resource for
groups monitoring
prisons and other places
of detention around the
world will play a key
part in the fight around
torture, experts have
said. Abuse in jails and
other places of
detention can now be
recorded with greater
accuracy than ever
before. A new system for
recording weapons and
restraints will help
human rights monitors
better independently
document and track the
use of torture in
without the need to be
reliant on information
from authorities.
Although, many monitors
have unrestricted access
to places, where
persons, may be,
deprived of their
liberty and many
countries, also, have
national bodies to
prevent torture and ill
treatment, there is a
knowledge gap on how
best to record the
firearms, less lethal
weapons and restraints
often found in places of
detention. It is hoped
the new guide for
monitors will prompt
them to assess places of
detention in more
detail, looking beyond
just checking they meet
national standards and
broadening the scope of
what they examine.
The guide will equip
detention monitors with
skills to record cases
of mistreatment in more
detail, helping them to
better recognise if
weapons and restraints
are being misused. The
information will help to
corroborate allegations
of torture and
ill-treatment made by
detainees and could play
a major part in fighting
torture around the
world.
The new guide Monitoring
weapons and restraints
in places of detention:
a practical guide for
detention monitors, was
launched at the United
Nations in Geneva, with
a presentation to the
Plenary of the UN
Sub-Committee for the
Prevention of Torture
during its 35th meeting.
The guide was developed
by Dr Abi Dymond, from
the University of Exeter
and by the Omega
Research Foundation, a
UK NGO, which researches
the manufacture, trade
and use of, military,
security and police
equipment. It will be
used by the SPT and
others human rights
monitors as they
document torture and
help them compile
evidence from survivors.
Dr Dymond said, “I hope,
the guide will help to
reduce and prevent
torture around the world
and enhance
accountability for use
of force. Focusing on
the equipment used in
prisons can help
corroborate evidence and
testimonies and help
give an independent way
to document
mistreatment, rather
than just information
authorities want to
give.
By helping to identify
wrongdoing and misuse of
weapons and restraints,
this guide has the
potential to improve
relationships between
prisoners and staff. It
will help start
discussions about the
appropriateness of
current policy and
practice, and whether
less harmful
alternatives could be
used.”
The guide was developed
as a result of requests
from several torture
prevention bodies,
including, the SPT. It
helps such bodies to
collate and monitor
standards around the use
of firearms, less lethal
weapons and restraints
in places of detention.
It, also, shows them how
to document what they
see, what to ask and key
observations they should
make in prisons,
hospitals and other
places of detention.
The guide informs
monitors to,
particularly, look out
for inappropriate items,
such as, weighted leg
restraints or electric
shock weapons and
encourages them to speak
to prison staff to check
their understanding of
when they, may, use
weapons and restraints,
their understanding of
human rights and whether
they have skills to help
them avoid using force.
Sir Malcolm Evans, Chair
of the SPT and Professor
of Public International
Law, University of
Bristol, said, “While
some equipment may have
a legitimate role to
play in places of
detention under strictly
controlled conditions,
others have no place at
all, being inherently
cruel, inhuman and
degrading, yet, they
continue to be promoted,
marketed, bought and
sold.
Monitoring bodies are
increasingly starting to
recognise the importance
of accurate
documentation of weapons
and restraints in places
of detention and of
paying attention to the
instruments used to
inflict abuse.
Enhanced awareness of
weapons and restraints
can help torture
prevention bodies to
recognise when
inappropriate equipment
is being used or is
being considered for
use; to investigate the
use of weapons and
restraints where there
are grounds for concern;
and provide additional
evidence around the
allegations of torture
and ill-treatment made
by detainees.
Having been closely
involved in the
development of this
resource, I am confident
that it will be of value
to a wide range of
detention monitors and
torture prevention
bodies more broadly and
will be an invaluable
resource in the fight
against torture.” :::ω.
||
Readmore ||
‽: 250618 ||
Up || |
|
Joint Statement of Four
UK Human Rights and
Equality Bodies on
Exiting the European
Union: In Relation to
Equality and Human
Rights We Need
Progression Not
Regression |
 |
|
|| June 15: 2018 || ά.
The four UK human rights
and equality bodies,
Equality and Human
Rights Commission:EHRC,
Equality Commission for
Northern Ireland:ECNI,
Northern Ireland Human
Rights Commission:NIHRC
and Scottish Human
Rights Commission:SHRC,
which are the four
statutory bodies for
human rights and
equalityin the country,
have issued a joint
statement on the UK
exiting the European
Union.
In the statement the
bodies said: We are
united in our commitment
to protect and enhance
equality and human
rights standards across
the UK. We have jointly
identified three
priority areas, that
should be protected and
advanced in the course
of the UK’s exit from
the European Union.’’
These are: i: ensuring
parliament gets a say in
any proposed changes to
the UK’s equality and
human rights legal
framework.
ii: retaining, at least,
equivalent equality and
human rights legal
protections as those we
currently have in the
UK, we need progression,
not regression and iii:
ensuring the UK is a
global leader in
equality and human
rights. ‘’We, also,
consider that the
protection of equality
and human rights should
remain a priority in
negotiations on the
Withdrawal Agreement.
We are, particularly,
concerned that loss of
the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of
the EU will lead to gaps
in protection and that
removing the Charter as
part of the Brexit
process would create
significant legal
uncertainty; retained
law would simply be
incomplete without it.
This is clearly
demonstrated by the
decision of the Irish
Supreme Court on
February 01, 2018 to
refer a question to the
European Court on
whether it should refuse
extradition to the UK
under a European arrest
warrant because of
uncertainty whether the
Appellant’s rights,
including, under the
Charter, will be capable
of enforcement after
Brexit.
The simplest and best
way to comply with the
government’s political
commitment that
substantive rights
remain unchanged after
Brexit is to retain
Charter rights in
relation to EU law
throughout the UK. :::ω.
|| Readmore
|| ‽: 160618 || Up
|| |
|
|
|
|
|
|